Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= * Category talk:Slang * Category talk:Terminology These categories are rather loose in concept and could use further refining, retooling or renaming. Any discussion, or revival of previous discussions on these matters would be gratefully appreciate! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Starship classes move Move all Category:Starship classes to Category:Spacecraft classes, or if we feel so inclined, "spacecraft types" vs. "classes." This applies to the subcategories, and is based on changes implemented at Category talk:Spacecraft. This move is based on the analysis that not all vessel classes listed in "starship classes" are starship classes... While making this move, it would probably be a good idea to create a new subcategory for Category:Federation starship classes, nay, Category:Federation spacecraft classes called Category:Federation shuttle classes (or "types") as there are several. --Alan 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) * I don't see a problem creating separate classes for spacecraft classes and types. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary, though. "Spacecraft classes" doesn't sound very good, though... maybe "ship classes"? Eh, then I'd guess we'd have to include non-starfaring ships. Anyway, I support the cat move and creation of the sub-cat. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC) * I like "ship classes", and if there are not starfaring ships in that list, we can break them into a separate sub-category quite easily. -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Category:Religious leaders Based on my examples in the nomination for the Category:Religious figures, I think what I really meant for that category to be was for feared or revered gods, and prophets, angels, and other Biblical (or related text) figures, not Kai Winn or Jimmy Swaggert. I think something like Category:Religious leaders might be a good division point. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) : So, let me get this straight... "figures" would be for gods, angels, etc. Leaders for those who lead churches (ie, the pope, etc...). What about various Vedeks? Would they fall into that category? If so, I can see that beinguseful. We could even possibly break them off into a subcategory of "Bajoran Religious Leaders" -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Basically. The term "church leader" can be used to describe your local "priest", "pastor" or whatever else isnt coming to mind at the moment, like I often hear on the news, "Such and such local religious leaders did this or that today...". --Alan del Beccio 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Events, missions, projects and expeditions We have several events, missions, projects and expeditions, but I cannot think of a unilateral term to encompass them all. Here is the list, compiled from : Arias Expedition, Axanar Peace Mission, Bolian Operation, Fornax Disaster, Great Diaspora, Operation Lovely Angel, Operation Retrieve, Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project, Particle Fountain Project, shakedown cruise, Vulcan reunification, Vulcanian expedition, Xindi reunification. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) *Good call, but I have no idea on a single name, either. Maybe the items you list are still too diverse to be listed under one category? "Mission" could probably encompass all those "Operations", but "Project"? Not sure... -- Cid Highwind 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) *I like this, too, but don't know what to call it either. -- Renegade54 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) *I like this idea as well, perhaps calling it "Events"? Perhaps the category of Military Conflicts should be a subcategory of it, or at least this new category should be clearly defined as being nonmilitary.--31dot 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) *I support creating an events category, with military conflicts (and any other applicable existing cats) as subcategories.– Cleanse 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Shapeshifting Species To be based on Shapeshifting species. It is a fairly common phenomenon in Trek, with about 14 species listed on that page. – Cleanse 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Warp technology What about a Category:Warp technology considering that there is so much information dealing with warp technology and at least a couple don't have categories.--UESPA 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :Other than being more limited (an probably a subcat of), how would it be different than Category:Propulsion technology? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Because there is a lot about warp technology and if you're looking specifically for that it makes more sense to have it at least partially (making it a sub category makes sense to) seperated. Also propulsion technology is somewhat vague.--UESPA 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) ::I can see the possibility of it being a sub-category of the Propulsion Tech. UESPA, create a list of articles for this category in your user space and link it from here so that people can see what you're talking about. -- Sulfur 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Now that I've taken another look at it there is so much warp technology in Category:Propulsion technology that 90% of everything in there would be in this proposed category. (I've got to learn to think before I start typing).--UESPA 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Fictional Objects We have a Category:Fictional characters, and an Category:Aliases, but nothing for objects which are made up, such as the USS Lollipop, Firomactal drive, and others. Maybe a Fictional Objects category?--31dot 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC) : Category:Fictional technology? --Alan 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) That sounds better. --31dot 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ::Support. --From Andoria with Love 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Upon looking, the USS Voyeur probably would go in this category as well.--31dot 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Perhaps Corbomite as well.--31dot 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC) :::Support - Another one: USS Vortex– Cleanse 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Support. Don't forget USS Lollipop.--Long Live the United Earth 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC) :::::I didn't, see above. :) --31dot 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Created or Fictional Technobabble Looking through the pages that are uncatagorized, I found some of the terms that Riker created to confuse Morta in . Wondering if a sub-catagory of Category:Terminology could be created for this. Something like "Created Terminology", "Fictional Terminology", ect. Wondering about everyones' thoughts on this. The articles themselves reference gibberish that just links to Technobabble. Here are the articles: * Bilateral kelilactiral * Redundant melacortz ramistat * FTL nanoprocessor * Firomactal drive * Primary heisenfram terminal * Isopalavial interface * Ontarian manifold * KRG Thanks. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :I like it. Maybe call it Fictional technology. --- Jaz 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :: How is this different than what is suggested above? --Alan 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :::I'm a little biased, but I don't think it is any different. I don't think it should be a subcategory of Terminology.--31dot 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Honestly, I did read the above section, but for some reason, I did not connect the two issues. Having said that, I'll support these terms being thrown into Fictional Technology. Sorry for the confusion. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Martial Arts As a sub-cat to Category:Sports. There's about 15 martial arts-related articles on the page of the same name.– Cleanse talk 08:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::Support. Would the list article need to be eliminated afterwards?--31dot 12:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I was thinking of the new cat more as a supplement, as the current page has several references to martial arts in general.– Cleanse talk 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) :::Just wondering. I didn't care one way or the other. :) --31dot 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) : Support --Alan 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Banned Items/Substances On the talk page for the Crimes category we have been discussing the idea of a category for banned items, objects, or substances. To get ideas on a potential name for this category I have started this thread. I 'll put my vote in for either Banned Materials or Banned Substances. I'm not sure if either of those covers objects as well as substances, but I can't think of anything better.--31dot 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC) :Support – I think maybe "Banned Materials" as it covers more, but if someone can think of a better title, that would be good.– Cleanse 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC) ::I see some problems there: First, we would have to make sure that only objects really mentioned as "banned" show up there - for example, the fact that vole fighting is illegal somewhere doesn't make a vole a banned item itself. Second, where does an item need to be banned? Using the vole example again, it might be a crime in Bajoran space, but not necessarily under Federation law. Third, when does an item need to be banned? Romulan ale, for example, was briefly "unbanned" during the Dominion War, and we can't be sure whether a potential 23rd-century banned item is still banned in the 24th century. -- Cid Highwind 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::The Vole fighting crime now exists, and I don't believe it was ever said that Voles in and of themselves were illegal(pests, maybe, but not illegal), so I removed the crimes cat from that and it doesn't need to be listed as a banned item. :::As to your other points, I think the where and when is immaterial to any categorization of it as banned. The same thing could be said for any crime- maybe murder is legal somewhere in the galaxy(among the Chalnoth, perhaps). Also, look at bribery, which is illegal in some places but legal on Ferenginar. That doesn't mean it should be removed as a crime. A banned materials category would contain any materials which are or have been banned, and thus were crimes to possess or obtain. A change in status doesn't remove its previous status, Tuvok is categorized as a Borg drone even though he is no longer one, because he was one at one point. The article itself will note when and where the item was banned. I don't think we need to speculate about what happened to the ban subsequent to the episode.--31dot 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::Well, I guess what I'm really trying to say is: If this category definition is a little "iffy", and we only have four known members at the moment, anyway - wouldn't it be better to at least start this as a list somewhere, instead of making it a full category right now? I think this list could be added to the Smuggling article, where it would also keep a direct connection to the Crimes category. By the way, the best title, whether it's for a category or a list section, would probably be Contraband... -- Cid Highwind 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::I like the sound of Contraband for a name. If it ends up as a list it could be its own article, I think. I support simply a list if that's what is settled on, but I think a category is best.--31dot 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :"Contraband" could work. In response to your concern for lack of numbers, I think there's a few more that just weren't listed as crimes in the first page. Here's a list I got so from googling "illegal" on MA: :* Venus drug :* Bio-mimetic gel :* Regalian liquid crystal :* Romulan ale :* Varon-T disruptor :* Maraji crystal :* Skagaran whiskey :* Cloaking device (Bajoran law) :* Enolian spice wine :* Metagenic weapon :* Biogenic weapon :* Interphase cloaking device - iffy, not really banned per se, just Feds not allowed to use it :* Romulan mind probe :* Kemocite - was directly referred to as "contraband" in ep :* Rigelian flame gem - at least in the mutara sector, in an alternate timeline :* Thought maker :* Tallonian crystal :* Mimetic simbiot :Possibly more if the article uses roundabout terminology or doesn't currently mention the illegality.– Cleanse 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :::: I think this is a bit too vague of a topic. Unlike other categories, where we generally link together common people, places, or objects, this is a mismatch of things that are only one thing here, but another thing there. --Alan 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Professors Category:Professors. There's quite a lot of them, currently listed at Professor. Would be along the lines of Category:Dabo girls, as sub-cat to Category:Occupations.– Cleanse 10:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) :Support in that form. I also wonder if Teachers should be included in such a category, perhaps by calling it Educators.--31dot 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) :I would also submit that it could be a subcat of Education.--31dot 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Educators would work - I'd support going with that. :-)– Cleanse 10:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::Support for Category:Professors. I think several professors didn't match the category "Educators" and an own category would be good, for example James Moriarty. – Tom 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::Suport going with Tom's argument.--UESPA 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC) You've got a good point there with Moriarty. Perhaps both Cat:Professors and Category:Teachers?– Cleanse 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :I think this is a good proposal. I agree. – Tom 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :I support that as well.--31dot 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC) :: Perhaps we have to do a category by both "title" (Category:Professors) and by "occupation" (Category:Educators)..not all teachers are professors and apparently vice versa from the comments above. Obviously there would be some overlap, but at least this way we can cover all the bases at once. --Alan 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Native Americans Category:Native Americans. I think we have a few here and I think an own category as a subcategory of Category:Humans would be good. Thoughts? – Tom 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :I wonder what sort of precedent that would set, and whether it would be good or not. A few random thoughts- Does that mean Blacks, Whites, Asians, all should have their own category? What about different races of aliens, like Tuvok? How do we know various people aren't of mixed racial ancestry? Humans in Star Trek rarely mention their racial differences or race with regards to other humans( ) is a rare exception) so I wonder if that needs to be done here. --31dot 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ::I don't really like this suggestion. First, for the reasons stated above - it would set a precedent to separate by racial difference, something the shows itself try to avoid, That, and we don't really know the ancestry of many characters, so such a category would necessarily be very incomplete and speculative. Second, for a more technical reason - separating some "Humans" into a subcategory would (obviously) mean that not all humans are listed in Category:Humans any longer. The alternative would be to categorize an article as both "Human" and "Native American" (plus more categories that would probably follow), which would just bloat the category listing on the article. -- Cid Highwind 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ::: Unless you just considered it a group, but that would really only make partial sense if we were describing a specific "tribe" versus an entire people. Also, it would seem that we go so far as to indicate all the characters of the American Indian heritage on that page, but not so with Asians, Africans, etc.... --Alan 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC) :Ok, I understand the doubts and they are clear. Perhaps a too fast proposal. – Tom 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Militaries Category:Military agencies. A category for any military agency, from the Andorian Imperial Guard to the Luftwaffe to Starfleet. There's quite a few listed in Category:Agencies and Category:Earth agencies.– Cleanse 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Production POV categories Movie Credits Now that we're moving movie credits to their own page (a good idea in my opinion), why not give them their own sub-cat in Category:Star Trek movies?– Cleanse 10:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :Actually, a suggestion that came up on IRC was to call it "Star Trek credits", and also put it as a subcat of episodes, so that it could cover seasonal credits for the television shows too. -- Sulfur 10:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC) That's probably a better idea.– Cleanse 11:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::We're moving movie credits to their own article? Where, and why? -- Cid Highwind 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::Yes, why? I am against this move.What are the next steps? To move every cast list from the episodes pages? Seperate sections for background infomration? Sorry, but this sounds not good for me. – Tom 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::: Chill Holmes, no need to go to extremes in speculation. No information was lost, no damage done. The plan was for just the films, and then the series by seasons, just to (finally) get a complete list of credits, which this site lacks. There were no intentions of removing the cast from the episode pages, nor were there any intentions to create 700+ "credits for X episode" articles, when again, most everyone credited in any given episode per any single season, is nearly the same individual as credited in the next. Variations would stay on the episode page, and so would uncredited people, since they weren't in the "official" credits. With that said, take a minute and look at Credits for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, there are over 375 individuals credited to that one production, which goes without saying that such a list would easily overwhelm -- nay, consume-- the film article. In fact, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was consumed with what it had already, which was not well organized and was incomplete, now everything is tidy and accounted for, with proper credit given in proper order. --Alan 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::::: I agree, the cast/crew listings will definitely overwhelm the film pages, so a separate page for them might be best. The credits for aren't even finalized yet the cast/crew listing on that page was longer than any other section... in fact, they were about as long as the film page is now, without them. That's pretty immense. Plus, look on the bright side – we can now have articles dedicated to a list of every single person who worked on the film. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::Know that we figured this out how about voting on the category suggestion. I support something along the lines of Star Trek credits.--UESPA 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Destruction of Hero Ship Okay, the name needs some work (please make suggestions), but I think it might be helpful to have a category for all the eps or movies where we see the destruction of the Hero ship. There are actually quite a few, if you count all the reset button episodes. --- Jaz 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :I like it. Maybe "Main Vessel/Ship Destruction" or "Destruction of Significant Vessels/Ships"? This wouldn't include Deep Space 9, and I'm not sure how to add that in. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::Oppose. We had discussions about "story-element-categories" in the past, with the outcome that this really isn't the place for those. And, I have to add, this one is a rather random story element to base a category on... -- Cid Highwind 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::: O'Brien Must Die. --Alan 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Oppose, for the reasons Cid stated.--31dot 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Oppose. It would invite things like "Ferengi episode", "Wesley saves the ship", "Sisko loses command", and yes, "O'Brien Must Suffer". All interesting topics, but not really necessary//appropriate as encyclopedia categories. :-)– Cleanse 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::Oppose along with Cid and Cleanse. And don't forget the episodes in which those poor redshirts died.--UESPA 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Maintenance categories Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha images Locations *Category:Memory Alpha images (locations), for images of compartments aboard starships and space stations like the Image:NX Sickbay.jpg, also for images like Image:RuraPentheMine2293.jpg, which could possibly be put under Category: Memory Alpha images (planets), but not really. Deevolution 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) : Okay, but in addition, what if we went with Category: Memory Alpha images (landscapes) for planet-side matte images, etc...--Alan 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC) ::Category: Memory Alpha images (exteriors) and Category: Memory Alpha images (interiors)? That way we can do space scenery as well? Deevolution 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC) :::I think that we might even be able to break this down a bit better, such as: :::* Locations :::** Building Interiors :::** Spaceship Interiors :::** Space vistas :::** Landscapes :::This seems to cover all of the things noted above. Not the perfect names, more trying to get what they might contain. "Locations" should be the "catch-all", building interiors and spaceship interiors split those up rather than just munging them all together as one. Space vistas allows for exterior shots of space, and landscapes for planet-side exterior shots. Thoughts? -- Sulfur 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) : Sounds good! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Comic Cover breakdown We currently have 400+ images in the comic covers category. This seems a little excessive to me. I would suggest breaking these down into categories by company as such: * Category:Memory Alpha images (DC comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (DC TOS comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (DC TNG comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (WildStorm comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Gold Key comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (IDW comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Malibu comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Marvel comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Tokyopop comic book covers) I considered breaking them down by TOS/TNG/VOY/etc, but there are a number that do not fall into any of those categories, and a number that fall into multiple categories, and I don't know if having so many categories on each image is really all that useful. Note that DC was split into three sub-categories. WildStorm is a special imprint of DC that act(ed) as a separate company (for all intents and purposes -- but it could go into the upper level too...), and there are so many DC images that it only makes sense to split them into TOS and TNG (as those were the two lines they published). -- Sulfur 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) : Support--Tim Thomason 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC) :: Sounds good! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)